We all came out of Berg’s suit

There is a very influential work in Russian literature by Nikolai Gogol titled (in translation) The Overcoat. The importance of this work and its effect on subsequent writers was memorialized by a famous quotation from Fyodor Dostoyevsky: “We all come out from Gogol’s ‘Overcoat’.”

Philip Berg

In the same vein, virtually all of the present birther mythology is found in the original Berg v Obama lawsuit from 2008 and all the birther lawsuits are little more than warmed over Philip J. Berg. (Berg also believed that the US Government was responsible for blowing up the Twin Towers on 9/11. Berg appears to be a credulous person with a conspiracy theory mindset.) Berg’s lawsuit in some small way legitimized the conspiracy theories in the popular mind.

Here are some of the ideas that came from Berg v. Obama in his Original C0mplaint:

The threat of civil disobedience should an ineligible person become the Democratic nominee for President.

The claim that Obama has “refused to prove” his eligibility. (Note: this is after Obama had published his birth certificate online).

Berg had a copy of the Obama divorce papers back in August of 2008 while others claimed to have “first discovered it” later.

Contradictory claims as to which hospital Obama was born in.

Hospitals reported (on the Internet) as having no birthing records for Obama in Hawaii

Obama became a Kenyan citizen upon Kenya’s independence (true).

Barack Obama’s mother naturalized as an Indonesian citizen

Barack Obama lost his US Citizenship when his mother naturalized. (He states that the Nationality Act of 1940 provides that a person loses their citizenship upon the naturalization of a custodial parent.) See What’s Your Evidence? for a discussion of why this is not true.)

The Indonesian school record lists Obama as an “Indonesian citizen”.

Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. This allegation is supported only by the statement: “Investigation further showed.”

Three forensic experts have shown the Obama birth certificate (COLB) posted on the Internet was a fake

The COLB was altered from his sister Maya’s birth certificate.

Obama lied on his Illinois bar application

Obama carries multiple citizenships (Kenyan and Indonesian).

There is a Canadian birth certificate for Obama on the Internet

Then Berg filed a motion for expedited discovery, and included the long list of demanded documents that we see over and over again. I won’t repeat these, but commend the reader to the link provided.

The Travel Ban to Pakistan, “Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens.” (not true) [I had thought that this myth was started by Janet Folger Porter in the pages of World Net Daily, November 28, 2008, but we see that Berg had stated it a month earlier.]

Non-Muslims were unwelcome in Pakistan in 1981 when Obama traveled there.

Later on Berg submitted the “affidavit” of the anonymous Kweli Shuhubia and the grandmother tape, introducing the idea that Obama’s birth certificate in Kenya was a government protected top secret. The taped interview between Ron McRae and Obama’s maternal grandmother (edited so as to make it say something other than what it actually said) was probably the single most important factor in convincing the birthers.

Besides some misstatements of Hawaiian vital statistics law that appeared in Keyes v Bowen, there’s not much else of consequence in this discussion beyond those Internet rumors collated by Philip J. Berg into the Berg v. Obama lawsuit. We all came out of Berg’s suit.

G: So, is there anything at all that Apuzzo or any of the others brought to the table on their own?

Yes – each supported their own, of a seemingly unlimited assortment of (often) mutually exclusive, Obama-disqualifying interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, all of which have been inelegantly spewed forth onto “the table” where those still sane among us, watch in appalled fascination. The resulting witches’ brew of purposely and repeatedly savaged history, defies succinct refutation, and although the good Doctor C has with this site, thoroughly debunked the lot, the chances that any logic will prevail over the Birthers alternating realities, are about as likely as the chances of an original-owner redistribution of the contents of a spittoon.

Berg was an ardent Clinton supporter, and the Mombasa story started with him, to try to derail Obama. When she started doing poorly in the primaries, Berg would not let go, and became more vociferous.

It’s now taken on a life of its own.

Like Iraq, which started with the fabrication “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
– Saddam Hussein has WMDs
– Hussein has bioweapons labs hidden in trailers
– Hussein has reconstitued his atomic bomb research
– Hussein helped plan 9/11
– If we don’t invade, we’ll be looking at a mushroom cloud

I’ve tried to get a clear understanding of the legal wrangling going on between Taitz and Berg, but the he said/she said nature of their court documents is difficult to follow. Could someone summarize the core issues in the recent lawsuits these two crockaducks have filed against one another?

Actually, an awful lot of what you attribute to Berg’s October Amended Complaint was already in his August Complaint. Mombasa, the supposed relatives’ testimony, the name Barry Soetoro, the Pakistan stuff.

Also of note is that while Berg was responsible for cementing all of this into the Birther mythology, there’s one tidbit that I believe he was actively responsible for creating from scratch: the claim that Obama was born in Coast Provincial General Hospital. I’ve been unable to find even a single mention of that hospital before Berg put it in his Request for Admissions.

I know my post doesn’t add to the “mythology” in the spirit of the article, but some things to add.

D’Onofrio’s early lawsuits in New Jersey (along with the stonewalling and intimidation he faced attempting to file his papers in DC ) forced him to research and to identify the right court, the right legal theory, and the right plaintiff to bring effective suit.

His original work regarding Chester Arthur’s ineligibility and the work that was done to cover it up should also be noted; as well as his pleas to any active service member to stay clear of the issue. His blog of course is down to minimize chatter surrounding the case he has chosen, but the archives are still available.

Apuzzo adds the right timing and the right defendants (after the electoral vote, but before the inauguration). He of course chatters all the time.

E GLenn Harcsar: His original work regarding Chester Arthur’s ineligibility and the work that was done to cover it up should also be noted;

This article is about “birthers” in the strict sense, which Leo Donofrio is not. But he is indeed responsible for the historical smear campaign against a decent man and pretty good president, Chester A. Arthur. Donofrio used the tricks of the propagandist to turn normal events into damning suspicion against Arthur.

Vice-Chancellor Sandford of the New York Chancery Court in his decision in Lynch v Clarke said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind and went on to comment that such a person was eligible to be president!

If the universal impression of the public mind was that Arthur’s Irish father was no impediment to him running for vice president (which has the same qualifications as president), exactly what did Arthur, a New York lawyer, have to cover up? Further, I uncovered evidence that Arthur’s fiercest opponent, A. P. Hinman, was very likely aware of the circumstances of Arthur’s birth.

Donofrio’s “work” is a fraud and a sham.

And I should point out that even given some situation (which I cannot foresee) where a lawyer could get past the issue of standing, it would only lead to dismissal on the merits.

Arthur: Open Question: I’ve tried to get a clear understanding of the legal wrangling going on between Taitz and Berg, but the he said/she said nature of their court documents is difficult to follow. Could someone summarize the core issues in the recent lawsuits these two crockaducks have filed against one another?

The only potentially meritious claim is the allegation that Taitz said decidedly false things about Berg’s assistant. Taitz’s published “her” social security number, and then claimed she was a convicted felon. Everyone else is on the hook for repeating those claims.

Oh: Apuzzo didn’t add the “right” plaintiffs; he got bounced for standing like Berg. The closest one to having the right plaintiffs was Kreep/Taitz, with actual candidates (Keyes, Lightfoot, etc.) As for Apuzzo’s timing, the inauguration basically mooted it.

E GLenn Harcsar: I know mypost doesn’t add to the “mythology” in the spirit of the article, but some things to add.D’Onofrio’s early lawsuits in New Jersey(along with the stonewalling and intimidation he faced attempting to file his papers in DC ) forced him to research and to identify the right court,the right legal theory, and the right plaintiffto bring effective suit.

This part about intimidation is news to me. What sort of intimidation does he allege?

Given that his suit was dismissed, in what sense did he have the right anything? Do you mean that he gave it the best shot he could?

E GLenn Harcsar: D’Onofrio’s early lawsuits in New Jersey(along with the stonewalling and intimidation he faced attempting to file his papers in DC ) forced him to research and to identify the right court,the right legal theory, and the right plaintiffto bring effective suit.

E GLenn Harcsar: I know my post doesn’t add to the “mythology” in the spirit of the article, but some things to add.D’Onofrio’s early lawsuits in New Jersey (along with the stonewalling and intimidation he faced attempting to file his papers in DC ) forced him to research and to identify the right court, the right legal theory, and the right plaintiff to bring effective suit. His original work regarding Chester Arthur’s ineligibility and the work that was done to cover it up should also be noted; as well as his pleas to any active service member to stay clear of the issue. His blog of course is down to minimize chatter surrounding the case he has chosen, but the archives are still available.Apuzzo adds the right timing and the right defendants (after the electoral vote, but before the inauguration). He of course chatters all the time.

Dave: This part about intimidation is news to me. What sort of intimidation does he allege?

Well first Donofrio alleged a court clerk was keeping his case off the docket (it appears he was trying to file the wrong thing, so the clerk properly bounced his incorrect filing).

But the kicker was his tale of going to D.C. to file his cert. petition — all cloak and dagger stuff with government agents posing as homeless people, fearing his was being tracked by the RFID chip in his passport, etc.

E GLenn Harcsar: D’Onofrio’s early lawsuits in New Jersey (along with the stonewalling and intimidation he faced attempting to file his papers in DC ) forced him to research and to identify the right court, the right legal theory, and the right plaintiff to bring effective suit.

Um, and what “right court, the right legal theory, and the right plaintiff to bring effective suit” would those entail?

So far, neither D’Onofrio nor any other birther has succeeded on any one of those three you mentioned.

E GLenn Harcsar: Apuzzo adds the right timing and the right defendants (after the electoral vote, but before the inauguration). He of course chatters all the time.

Right timing & right defendants? Really? Are you here doing comedy??? Again, there has been nothing but FAIL on all fronts, so I can only assume that your entire post was meant as sarcasm, as it has no basis in reality.

E GLenn Harcsar: D’Onofrio’s early lawsuits in New Jersey (along with the stonewalling and intimidation he faced attempting to file his papers in DC )

He didn’t face “stonewalling”. He was inept and didn’t prepare his papers for filing. The US Supreme Court is very particular about the forms of various types of briefs, numbers of copies required, form of presentation, size of type, etc. Donofrio didn’t read the rules of court before filing, and he messed things up a couple of times.

Like most incompetent and/or psychotic people, Donofrio tends to attribute the direct results of his own screw-ups to others being against him or out to get him. (This is very common in the legal field — inept lawyers regularly blame the judge for their own incompetence, claiming the judge is biased for ruling against them.)

A huge (in all senses of the word) birther, “Borderraven” [Name redacted, Doc], spent several weeks on the Washington Independent, Raw Story, and every other web site he could find arguing that NEITHER of the President’s parents were American citizens and thus the President wasn’t either. He based this on his misreading of the statutes concerning the legal status of American women who married non-citizens. Is this something that he made up, or has an actual genuine lawyer attempted this one? It seems to be unique to ol’ [Name redacted, Doc] so I was curious.

Ellid: I have a question:A huge (in all senses of the word) birther, “Borderraven” [Name redacted, Doc], spent several weeks on the Washington Independent, Raw Story, and every other web site he could find arguing that NEITHER of the President’s parents were American citizens and thus the President wasn’t either. He based this on his misreading of the statutes concerning the legal status of American women who married non-citizens. Is this something that he made up, or has an actual genuine lawyer attempted this one? It seems to be unique to ol’ [Name redacted, Doc] so I was curious.

I remember “borderraven” posting over at the tROSL. He is definately a full on drank the kool aid birther. And he does believe that a woman loses her US citizenship if she married a citizen of another country.

Black Lion: I remember “borderraven” posting over at the tROSL. He is definately a full on drank the kool aid birther. And he does believe that a woman loses her US citizenship if she married a citizen of another country

He also believes children (no matter where they are born or who their parents are) are not citizens unless they take an oath of allegiance when they turn 18. I believe he also thinks that the children of unmarried parents (even if both are not US citizens) cannot become citizens. What happens to them and to those who refuse or neglect to take the oath is not clear, since they would be stateless.

And yet, there are those like “Scott Brown” who wish to tell us that all opinions are equal in value and none are right or wrong.

Scientist:
He also believes children (no matter where they are born or who their parents are) are not citizens unless they take an oath of allegiance when they turn 18.I believe he also thinks that the children of unmarried parents (even if both are not US citizens) cannot become citizens.What happens to them and to those who refuse or neglect to take the oath is not clear, since they would be stateless.And yet, there are those like “Scott Brown” who wish to tell us that all opinions are equal in value and none are right or wrong.

I remember him posting over @ NNBC’s site. I believe he may be from AZ or TX. His views are so that he can be consistent in his total disdain of anything “brown”.

“The Post & Email has been investigating the alleged Selective Service registration of Barack Hussein Obama II. Our previous report described differing computer printouts received by two individuals who requested the information through a Freedom of Information Act request. ”

The response….

“Enclosed are copies of his registration form and the resultant automated file screen. Mr. Obama did indeed register with Selective Service and was assigned Selective Service Number 61-1125539-1 on September 4, 1980.

The “1H” status assigned to him at the time was not, strictly speaking, a “classification.” Selective Service has not classified registrants since the draft ended in the mid-’70s. However, since that time, “1H” has been assigned to everyone as a catch-all classification. It was not assigned to Mr. Obama as the result of any action on his part, and there is no related “documentation.” The formal description of “1H” is “Registrant not currently subject to processing for induction or alternative service.”

The Post and Fail doing what they do best, move the goalposts….

Thank you for your prompt response to my previous FOIA response of May 10, 2010. I have several questions:

1. I noticed that you spell Obama’s first name “Barrack”. However, the documentation you sent me indicates that this person completed his registration form spelling his first name “Barack.” Are there two different individuals with this name?

2. May I have a copy of the referenced “acknowledgment letter request”?

3. Why is the Selective Service information on Barack Hussein Obama readily available, but his original birth certificate, passport and travel records unavailable to the public?

4. May I see the materials which Obama used to register for the Selective Service? How did he prove his residence, birthplace, and and birth date?

5. Why is Block #3 blacked out on the Selective Service registration form? What information normally goes in this box?

The response to the second Post and Fail letter….

Answers to your questions:

Files at our Data Management Center show the correct spelling of one “r” on his registration card.
Because of the sheer volume, only stock letters are maintained. Individual letters are not kept.
The question is not within the purview of Selective Service.
He completed the standard form at a local post office. At that time, registrants showed identification to postal clerks when registering.
Social Security numbers are protected by federal law.

“The letter which Ken Allen received from the Selective Service responding to his FOIA request spelled Obama’s first name “Barrack.” The Post & Email received the same form letter with the same spelling of the first name, although signed by a different Selective Service employee. However, as indicated in the email above, when questioned about the spelling, the employee answered that the correct spelling of Obama’s first name is with one “r”. Why, then, have they not corrected the form letter to agree with the files at their Data Management Center? Why doesn’t Selective Service correct its apparent error in the spelling of the name of the alleged President of the United States?”

He also has posted at Conservative Monster, Free Republic, Pest and Efail, etc. The fact that he gets past moderation on those sites tells you all you need to know (although in fairness Conservative Monster actually allows some contrary views to be posted).

“Borderraven wants to discuss the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as found in the 14th Amendment. Let’s see if he can make a coherent, reasoned argument for his side which I presume involves the flawed argument that children born to aliens, especially illegal aliens, are not citizens of the United States, contrary to the rulings of the Courts and the history of Citizenship in our Country.”

Rickey: He strikes me as being another troll who feigns reasonableness while he actually is a committed birther.On this blog he starts off by claiming that he likes Obama, but then he goes on to cite Vattel and he makes this remarkable assertion about Lakin:“The officer’s oath demands that he question, confer, and countermand orders as he sees fit.”http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2010/03/army-lt-col-terrence-lakin-birther-oath-keeper-newest-astroturfer-.htmlHe also has posted at Conservative Monster, Free Republic, Pest and Efail, etc. The fact that he gets past moderation on those sites tells you all you need to know (although in fairness Conservative Monster actually allows some contrary views to be posted).

If you read his so called post, you can see he is definately a birther….

Hi, I just linked in to this site.

Being born in in the states simply makes someone a native born citizen ( like my dad); one needs two citizen parents as well to be considered a natural born citizen ( like me and my siblings). It is ( as one somewhere once phrased it) our first national security measure against the potential influence of foreign prince.

In Obama’s case he claims one Kenyan parent( not exactly a prince, but a subject of Britain at the time). Simple. Not eligible.

Too bad. I like the guy. As do many.

I just wish the movers and shakers who groomed Obama for this leadership role had picked better. The cover ups, buy offs, and smoke screens can not survive the modern age. The information is just too readily available on the web for it to stay out of the eyes, ears, and then the minds of all Americans. We have been set up for a great betrayal by a man and by a political machinery who won’t survive on just our forgiving devotion to save them from the treason that they have knowingly committed.

I’m just thankful that the framers let us have a go at changing our constitution over time through the amendment process. A progressive world needs a progressive document. It makes revolution and coups unnecessary.

From what I could gather Borderraven is a member of the “sovereign citizen” movement, which means that he thinks there’s a distinction between “sovereign citizens” and “14th Amendment citizens.” He also really, really, really, really hates anyone who isn’t white, and if his Youtube channel is to be trusted, he’s a member of a Minuteman group somewhere in California. He’s also a Navy veteran who sees no contradiction in hating the government while living off a government pension.

He seems to have dropped out of the ether in the last few weeks. Makes he wonder if he’s changed his handle or moved…?

Ooooooh, I do hope Lakin’s lawyer tries to use that phrase at his CM, that’ll tell ‘em….

“Dear Colonel, today I shall be mostly tired and feel that your orders to take the hill in support of my unit are both irrational and cut into valuable golf time. Begone and be off foolish person….ps I want to see your birth certificate as your hue smacks of the African sub-continent and such”….

Why, then, have they not corrected the form letter to agree with the files at their Data Management Center? Why doesn’t Selective Service correct its apparent error in the spelling of the name of the alleged President of the United States?

My guess would be that nobody brought it to their attention before. Or they have more important things to do.

Good to see you posting here again, and thank you for your tireless efforts to debunk the postings of the Fat Raven of the Border,[Name redacted, Doc]. Unless he’s changed his nickname, [Name redacted, Doc] Boy hasn’t been around this site for months.

Ellid: From what I could gather Borderraven is a member of the “sovereign citizen” movement, which means that he thinks there’s a distinction between “sovereign citizens” and “14th Amendment citizens.” He also really, really, really, really hates anyone who isn’t white, and if his Youtube channel is to be trusted, he’s a member of a Minuteman group somewhere in California. He’s also a Navy veteran who sees no contradiction in hating the government while living off a government pension. He seems to have dropped out of the ether in the last few weeks. Makes he wonder if he’s changed his handle or moved…?

Bloatedraven hasn’t changed his mind. He’s tired of me following him around and including the link with the video and discussion about a video he had posted on YouTube of little girls in their bathing suits he titled ‘Girl Watching’. He claims he removed it himself but YouTube removed it and he was complaining about it at another forum. I could understand video recording children if they were my own but he was taping kids he didn’t know and making lewd comments about them while he was recording. He claims it doesn’t embarass him but it does and so that’s my way of getting rid of his idiocy.

Well met, DaveH and Arthur! Glad to find other people who are familiar with our gallant Dessert Shield veteran. He sort of disappeared after posting this ridiculous timeline on Raw Story that supposedly proved that spring break at the University of Hawaii lasted until October, and thus the Obamas could have gone home for a vacation and stayed until Stanley Ann was too pregnant to fly. I wonder if he went to Arizona to help patrol the border and melted in the sun?

let’s not forget freerepublic.com’s own “racebannon”, who in november 2009 reported that a young obama himself told racebannon that he was born in mombasa! the usurper-to-be’s naive confession is still being credulously cited to this day.

Expelliarmus:
He [Leo Donofrio] didn’t face “stonewalling”.He was inept and didn’t prepare his papers for filing.The US Supreme Court is very particular about the forms of various types of briefs, numbers of copies required, form of presentation, size of type, etc.Donofrio didn’t read the rules of court before filing, and he messed things up a couple of times.

Like most incompetent and/or psychotic people, Donofrio tends to attribute the direct results of his own screw-ups to others being against him or out to get him.(This is very common in the legal field — inept lawyers regularly blame the judge for their own incompetence, claiming the judge is biased for ruling against them.)

It wasn’t just at the Supreme Court either. Donofrio failed at every level and generally went away mad, complaining about some kind of misconduct.

He’s still at it. Donofrio and fellow birther lawyer Stephen Pidgeon have been representing some former Chrysler dealers. They lost of course, and Donofrio is ranting away, accusing both the lawyer who beat him and the judge of fraud.

I once wrote that Leo C Donofrio (or D’Onofrio, as he is sometimes called in ranking lists and tournament tables) was basically a Kibbitzer at chess. Always pulling out two or three games before the end of a tournament to avoid his bad results leading to a lower rating.

I have to correct that a bit, since at his last tournament, the Chicago Open (finished on May 31st 2010) he finished with 3 wins, one draw and three losses in the under 1900 section (come on, people, his appearance is indeed so er, impressive, that he often manages to get photographed like and with the world class chess masters, but you did not really think he actually plays in that league, did you?). Leo, with his 1899 rating at the start was actually the mathematicalfavourite to win that section and the 10,000 dollar prize money, but instead finished 48th and went home empty-handed. Well, he did make the tournament front web page. He also lost 35 points in his ranking. Coming after Philadelphia, where he also finished (badly, also losing points), this is quite atypical.http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10444/593 (scroll down for the photo – for those who do not yet know what Leo has in common with Orly and the Dutch darling of the birthers, geert Wilders)http://chesstournamentservices.com/cca/tag/world-open-2009-standings/ (showing what he until recently was good: withdrawing from tournaments when the first results were bad)http://chesstournamentservices.com/cca/2010/05/chicago-open-2010-standings-under-1900-section/ (Leo’s full result in Chicago, placed 48)
I cannot help but noticing that at Leo’s level now, he faces a lot of opponents with Islamic names but an American address.

I’ve written one book and done tons of historical resaerch with microfilm. There’s all kinds of anomolies from reel to reel. Each reel will indeed be different from each other.
Nothing there worth even mentioning.

aarrgghh, in reading the posts over at FR I wonder how someone can deal with the mental midgits that post there without having to have their brain’s bleached and that Loren has guts to deal with those seditious fools….Secondly the so called faulty research that is going viral in birtherland is getting the birthers all excited. They feel it can allow them to discredit the newspaper articles that showed that Obama’s brith was announced back in 1961.

Black Lion:
aarrgghh, in reading the posts over at FR I wonder how someone can deal with the mental midgits that post there without having to have their brain’s bleached and that Loren has guts to deal with those seditious fools….Secondly the so called faulty research that is going viral in birtherland is getting the birthers all excited.They feel it can allow them to discredit the newspaper articles that showed that Obama’s brith was announced back in 1961.

freeperville is a treehouse full of third graders arguing over who’s stronger: tarzan or flash gordon? if you take them too seriously you’ll end up like mr hood, crying in your cake for mama. but unlike loren, whose intestinal fortitude is to be wondered at, i’m just a voyeur.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
“[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

At the time the amendment was approved, the author of the clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the phrase relating to jurisdiction meant, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners … .”
In subsequent years, the courts invalidated the assurances of Howard; at this stage, an amendment to the Constitution seems the only means available to change the law….

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.”

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

murfar1: Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.”

The Feds didn’t limit immigration, but the states did. There was a debate between Senators Cowan and Conness about whether the 14th Amendment would make citizens of those who were illegal. Cowan wondered if the law would make citizens of Gypsies who acknowledged no law and the Chinese who he described as anm invading army that states should be allowed to exclude. Conness explained that it would do exactly that. No one corrected Conness and Cowan voted against the amendment.

Reading Howard’s statement to exlude citizenship to all children of foreigners makes the rest of his statement nonsensical. If the children of ALL foreigners were excluded, then why mention the families of ambassadors? I note the use of ellipses to make the sentence easier to explain in your post.

In my experience, people seem to have a penchant for discounting facts entirely or rationalizing them to fit their particular agenda. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oxnS4i8Tw4 and watch Michelle Obama live and in color publicly speaking about Kenya, her husband’s “home country”.

Obama’s “birth certificate” so often referred to and touted by the media is actually nothing more than a “certificate of live birth” , a short form which is issued to residents of Hawaii who’s child was born out of the state. This can, and often is issued on the basis of a sworn statement by parents or legal guardian; not necessarily on hospital records. Tim Adams, former Senior Elections Clerk for the County and City of Honolulu has stated among other things, “there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. [Obama] does have a [Certification] of Live Birth, which is given to children of families who are residents of Hawaii when children are born outside the state. So, I assert that he was born outside of Hawaii. Now, we can’t tell you where he was born. Some of his family members said that he had been born while his mother was on a trip overseas. There is no birth certificate,” he said. “It’s like an open secret. There isn’t one. Everyone in the government there knows this. To date, no Hawaiian hospital has provided documented confirmation Obama was born at its facility” See http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=168705.

President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut, while there is no record of him ever having had a mailing address in that state. The number was issued between 1977 and 1979 – while Obama’s employment reportedly dates back to 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii. There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.
Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.
Nor can be found in the public record that indicates Obama ever visited Connecticut during his high-school years. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165225.

Sworn affidavit of Minister Kweli Shuhubia includes partial transcript of an audio interview of Obama’s grandmother stating she attended Obama’s birth in Kenya. The affidavit further states that he, Minister Shuhubia personally spoke with the Chief Registrar in Mombassa who openly confirmed there were records of Ann Dunham (Obama’s mother) giving birth to “Barack” Hussein Obama III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. See http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVITexhibit2.pdf.

Now all of the foregoing is circumstantial and is not evidentiary and must therefore be set aside until such time as it becomes corroborated, i.e. a documented, verifiable paper trail or sworn statement by a person of “standing”.

There is only one thing which IS evidentiary and incontestable; Obama by his own admission was born of a Kenyan father. Even assuming that he was in fact, born in Hawaii, this disqualifies him from holding the office of President. His father, as a Kenyan was a British citizen as it was still part of the British empire at the time. Obama, by inheritance was also a British/Kenyan citizen. Dual citizenship gives him dual allegiance. Under Article II, sec. 1 of the Constitution, this is NOT a “natural born citizen”. Obama’s mother at the time was not old enough (under 19) to have automatically passed on and confer US citizenship.

What does all of this amount to? Probably not 2 spits. In my own personal opinion, Obama is not only NOT qualified to hold the office but is also an illegal alien. There is no record extant of immigration from Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro which was his legal name after adoption by his step-father Lolo Soetoro, as is documented by his school records while still in Indonesia.

I believe we are either stuck with him or blessed; according to one’s own proclivities until at least the next presidential election. Is that a good thing, or bad? Again, proclivities will be your guide. I also believe there will be no actions through the courts to grant redress or even discovery. To date, to the best of my knowledge, there have been 8 lawsuits questioning the validity of Obama’s credentials and qualifications to hold the office. All but one have been dismissed out of hand on technical points. None have been heard. The remaining lawsuit, I believe will be dealt with in a similar manner.

Discounting everything else completely and in totality, the one single burning question which remains for me is why does Obama absolutely and totally refuse to produce his birth certificate? The long form which was issued with EVERY birth in Hawaii in 1961. This is, after all the issue which gave life to, and continues to sustain the “birther” movement. Let him put it to rest.

murfar1: Obama’s “birth certificate” so often referred to and touted by the media is actually nothing more than a “certificate of live birth” , a short form which is issued to residents of Hawaii who’s child was born out of the state.

I just selected that from among the box car load of misleading statements cribbed from Mario Apuzzo’s web site (or somewhere like it).

First the birth certificate Barack Obama put on the Internet is a Certification of Live Birth (not a Certificate of Live Birth). The Certificate of Live Birth is the holy grail long form the birthers are bleating for. The Certification of Live Birth is the standard Hawaiian birth certificate for children who were born alive in Hawaii. Obama’s Certification of Live Birth says that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu (it’s on on the left side underneath the birther blind spot). There is a Certification of Foreign Birth for kids born out of state to Hawaii residents, according to a Department of Health spokesperson. This is the same terminology used across the country (See, for example, this from Florida, South Carolina, Hawaii, Connecticut, Oregon, Virginia, Maryland, New Hampshire and Ohio.)

Thank you Doctor for your thoughtful reply but are you to fault my entire statement on the basis of 3 letters? Certificate vs. certification? Are we to debate semantics rather than issues? COLB. The meaning is identical even lacking the suffix. A battle of semantics may be won by one or the other of us but it would not serve to advance the argument in either direction nor help clarify the issue.

In essence, I have already clearly and freely conceded all points in my original post and dismissed them as being non-evidentiary save one, and that one evidentiary fact does NOT involve the birth certificate, COLB, or however else you may choose to term it. But as you chose to address it, immaterial as it may be, allow me to correct you. The state of Hawaii routinely, as a matter of course and law,issued long form birth certificates for EVERY live birth which physically took place in the state of Hawaii up until 1972.

The issue here is the duality of citizenship at the time of birth, REGARDLESS OF WHERE he may have been born. Obama is admittedly born of a British/Kenyan father. He does not contest that and has stated it openly. Thus his dual allegiance; admittedly inherited, is still there and making him ineligible for the presidency.

I apologize for cluttering up my post with so many references. Perhaps they only served to muddle and confuse. I certainly didn’t intend them to be misleading as you seemed to regard them. Even so, perhaps they might be construed as such by those not overly familiar with the issue. It can be overwhelming.

I did find it curious however, you did not in your response, address in any way, nor try to clarify, explain or comment on my chief and most singular question: Why does Obama not simply produce his LONG FORM birth certificate and put an end to this circular and endless debate which has infected the nation and which will never come to rest until he does. There will always be doubts. There will always be efforts to discredit and unseat him. Surely he must realize that. I’m sure he does but what is the rationale? What is the mindset? What is the motivation?

I ask only for a simple answer to a simple question. Give me that and I shall ever remain silent and speak no more. One side of the aisle has their answer and the other side has theirs. Neither has a direct answer from Obama other than a COLB which bespeaks nothing.

murfar1: Thank you Doctor for your thoughtful reply but are you to fault my entire statement on the basis of 3 letters?Certificate vs. certification?Are we to debate semantics rather than issues?COLB.The meaning is identical even lacking the suffix.A battle of semantics may be won by one or the other of us but it would not serve to advance the argument in either direction nor help clarify the issue.In essence, I have already clearly and freely conceded all points in my original post and dismissed them as being non-evidentiary save one, and that one evidentiary fact does NOT involve the birth certificate, COLB, or however else you may choose to term it. But as you chose to address it, immaterial as it may be, allow me to correct you.The state of Hawaii routinely, as a matter of course and law,issued long form birth certificates for EVERY live birth which physically took place in the state of Hawaii up until 1972.The issue here is the duality of citizenship at the time of birth,REGARDLESS OF WHERE he may have been born.Obama is admittedly born of a British/Kenyan father.He does not contest that and has stated it openly.Thus his dual allegiance; admittedly inherited, is still there and making him ineligible for the presidency.
I apologize for cluttering up my post with so many references.Perhaps they only served to muddle and confuse.I certainly didn’t intend them to be misleading as you seemed to regard them. Even so, perhaps they might be construed as such by those not overly familiar with the issue. It can be overwhelming.I did find it curious however, you did not in your response, address in any way, nor tryto clarify, explain or comment on my chief and most singular question:Why does Obama not simply produce his LONG FORM birth certificate and put an end to this circular and endless debate which has infected the nation and which will never come to rest until he does.There will always be doubts.There will always be efforts to discredit and unseat him.Surely he must realize that.I’m sure he does but what is the rationale?What is the mindset?What is the motivation?I ask only for a simple answer to a simple question.Give me that and I shall ever remain silent and speak no more.One side of the aisle has their answer and the other side has theirs.Neither has a direct answer from Obama other than a COLB which bespeaks nothing.

Dwight Eisenhower, Spiro Agnew, John Kennedy. Three people in higher office who were dual citizens at birth. Other countries laws do not hold power over ours. Many countries state that the children of parents who are citizens gain citizenship at birth. So no the dual citizenship at birth didn’t disqualify Obama.

Tell me how many other presidents have you seen their long form birth certificate?

Murfari statement #1
“Obama is admittedly born of a British/Kenyan father. He does not contest that and has stated it openly. Thus his dual allegiance; admittedly inherited, is still there and making him ineligible for the presidency. ”

statement #2
“Why does Obama not simply produce his LONG FORM birth certificate and put an end to this circular and endless debate”

My answer is that statement #1 shows that statement #2 doesn’t matter to birthers. My other answer is that the voters disagreed with you on Obama’s fathers citizenship affecting eligibility. Not that any of this matters. All of the rest of the stuff you printed is just a mish-mash of hearsay and innuendo, refuted repeatedly but you don’t care.

murfar1: The issue here is the duality of citizenship at the time of birth,REGARDLESS OF WHERE he may have been born.Obama is admittedly born of a British/Kenyan father.He Kdoes not contest that and has stated it openly.Thus his dual allegiance; admittedly inherited, is still there and making him ineligible for the presidency.

Um, you might want to check. We have no prohibition on dual citizenship, and in fact, we don’t really care what other country’s laws are on who can become our President, and who cannot. What you’re saying is that every other country has a way of bringing down the government of the United States without firing a single shot. What you’re saying is that if a foreign government (say North Korea, or Cuba) decided to declare anybody born in the United States a citizen of their state, then eventually, we would run out of Natural Born Citizens to elect our President from. What you’re saying is that every single country has basically a veto clause on who can and cannot be President, and that who can and cannot be President is determined not by U.S. Law, but by the laws of every other country.

Why does Obama not simply produce his LONG FORM birth certificate and put an end to this circular and endless debate which has infected the nation and which will never come to rest until he does.There will always be doubts.There will always be efforts to discredit and unseat him.Surely he must realize that.I’m sure he does but what is the rationale?What is the mindset?What is the motivation?I ask only for a simple answer to a simple question.Give me that and I shall ever remain silent and speak no more.

You’ve already said that the birth certificate wouldn’t solve a darn thing as far as you were concerned. And it wouldn’t. They’d do 3 things: Decry it as a forgery and a fraud, say that it doesn’t actually prove anything, and then demand other documentation, such as his kindergarten records, to “finally put this matter to rest.” Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. What you’re basically asking Obama to do is become insane, and give into a lunatic fringe of people who will never accept his Presidency on the basis that I believe has more to do with his skin color than it does anything else.

One side of the aisle has their answer and the other side has theirs.Neither has a direct answer from Obama other than a COLB which bespeaks nothing.

The birth certificate (COLB) is a valid, state of Hawaii Birth Certificate that proves that Obama was born in Hawaii. If the Birthers don’t accept that, they won’t accept any amount of proof, no matter how legally convincing it actually is. If the Birthers ever got their “wish” and got a Court hearing on whether Obama was legally able to occupy the Presidency, the Court would take one look at that birth certificate (COLB), and then ask them what evidence they had. When nobody could present any actual evidence that refuted that, then the Judge would simply declare that Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefore is eligible to be President.

murfar1: Thank you Doctor for your thoughtful reply but are you to fault my entire statement on the basis of 3 letters? Certificate vs. certification?

No, not for the three letters, but for the substantive misstatement about what the certificate means. The rest was mostly innuendo, an argument form that I do not respect. You will find answers to everything you mentioned, I think, in articles on this site. Start here and work forward through the series.

You ask: “Why does Obama not simply produce his LONG FORM birth certificate and put an end to this circular and endless debate which has infected the nation and which will never come to rest until he does.”

I cannot speak for Obama, but I can think of any number of reasons that the long form has not been released.

The same comment you make was being made in mid 2008 only without the words “long form”. Candidate Obama published the then current standard birth certificate from Hawaii. It was the only form the State currently issued. So what happened? Folks like you moved the goal posts, added the words “long form” and made misinformation about Hawaiian birth certificates a cottage industry, and spawned charlatan document experts shouting “forgery.” There are already articles a year old about how Obama is creating the perfect forged long form:

The questions regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president have not gone away as the Obama people may have hoped. The law suits remain, the requests continue to pile up. So, the Obama team has come up with a plan to stop the inquiries once and for all; by producing a believable birth certificate.

Obama Administration teams are working diligently to produce a visually acceptable birth certificate that will once and for all, as far as they are concerned, put the issue to rest. Problem is, what they are working on is the production of a forgery of a long-form birth certificate from Hawaii.

The expectation is for this elaborate forgery to surface in the next month or two.

The forgery, it has been alleged, has already been printed on a fully functional 1960 Heidelberger printing press located at a print museum in Toronto, Canada. The blanks on the forged form is said to have been filled in with an old Underwood manual typewriter. The only reason we haven’t seen the forgery yet is that they are “seasoning” it under mild UV light and a back and forth rotation between a humidifier and a sauna.

murfar1: I believe we are either stuck with him or blessed; according to one’s own proclivities until at least the next presidential election. Is that a good thing, or bad? Again, proclivities will be your guide. I also believe there will be no actions through the courts to grant redress or even discovery. To date, to the best of my knowledge, there have been 8 lawsuits questioning the validity of Obama’s credentials and qualifications to hold the office. All but one have been dismissed out of hand on technical points. None have been heard. The remaining lawsuit, I believe will be dealt with in a similar manner.

Well, the others have already responded to or commented on all the other portions of your claims or questions, so I’ll just address updating you on the number of cases there have been to date, which has been vastly more than the 8 you were aware of:

There have been at least 70 “Birther” lawsuits so far, all of which have similarly gone down in flames.

A fairly detailed breakdown of all of them, including status, reasons for dismissal and any actions/defense efforts can be found here:

Also, you should be made aware that in the case of Ankeny v. Daniels, the courts did comment on the underlying issues involved and did issue an opinion that Obama was NBC. The lower court’s findings were upheld at the appellate level and you should be asking why the Birthers chose to stop there and not take this to the next step, the Supreme Court.

That should tell you that they were afraid to actually get to the “truth” of this issue, because if the Supreme Court heard this case and ruled on it, there would be an established definitive ruling on the question that Birthers “claim” to just want “clarification” on all along… yet they suddenly shied away and backed off on further pursuit of the one and only case which actually issued an opinion on the NBC issue…

Welcome

Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your des­tination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argu­ment with your buddies at the office? You're in the right place. Check out our featured articles. If you don't agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 225,000 comments others have left. To leave a comment not on the current articles, visit the Open Thread.

Quote of the day

Quotes of the day are intended to represent what is being said by people on both sides of the birther question. They do not necessarily represent the views of this web site.

I booby trapped the front door, the back door and the dog door, and I don't even have a dog. Try coming through that door and see what happens. Harry Reid looks like a Beauty Queen compared to what's gonna happen if you show up at my house.

Conspiracies

Sometimes people leave comments designed to offend or outrage the reader, and invoke a firestorm of protest in response. These are the Internet trolls. Replying to them is feeding them and they will come back for more. Refusing to play their game encourages them to go away.